the summer, after preparations for observing the twelfth were far advanced. The Hon. John B. Thacher and Richard Delafield, World's Fair Commissioners, had become interested in the matter and were working earnestly to secure action by Congress. At length, in the month of July, Senator Hill of New York introduced in the United States Senate a resolution changing the time of the national ceremonies in Chicago from the 12th to the 21st of October. The reasons the distinguished Senator gave for proposing the change show that he did not clearly understand, or that he paid little heed to the real principle involved. The change had been asked for on the ground of historical accuracy. Senator Hill argued that inasmuch as New York was to have a celebration on the twelfth it might interfere to have one in Chicago on the same day. But the resolution was adopted and received the approval of the President, who issued a proclamation declaring "October 21, 1892, the 400th anniversary of the Discovery of America” a legal holiday.

The advocates of the reform were glad enough to have the change made without stopping then to question the motive of the legislators who voted for it. It was too late to change the New York program as the legislature had adjourned after making the old style date a legal holiday. It is to be regretted that not half the people in the country understand the nature or the significance of this change of date, or can give any better reason for celebrating different days in Chicago and New York; but it is not to be wondered at that misunderstanding prevails when law makers and writers for the press get so far astray and so many misleading and conflicting statements appear in print.

When, as a nation, we had fixed upon and were preparing to celebrate October 21, the new style date of discovery, Spain had a grand celebration on the third of August as the 400th anniversary of the sailing from Palos, and strange to say no one in that country or in this seemed to think but that it was all right, notwithstanding the fact that Spain was nine days ahead of time. And now we find writers who, having adopted the new style date of Columbus's landing, make use of the old style in giving the time of his leaving Palos. The immediate effect of this is to allow eleven weeks and two days for a voyage that covered only ten weeks (including the time spent on the Canary Islands). If in this connection the historic facts that the sailing and the land

ing both took place on Friday, be considered it might be difficult to explain how August 3 and October 21, of the same year, could come on the same day of the week.

If newspaper and other writers play fast and loose with dates in this manner surely historians should do something to set the people right, but a number of school histories, revised and written up to date, claiming to give the events of Harrison's administration, make no mention whatever of the act of Congress changing an important date. In all these works the old story of Columbus's voyage is repeated, giving the dates August 3 and October 12, without so much as a foot note to explain that these are old style dates corresponding to August 12 and October 21 in our calendar. Only one of the revised works that I have seen makes any allusion to October 21, and that only to say that "the anniversary of the Discovery of America occurred in 1892 and the 21st of October was set apart as the anniversary," etc., without a word to explain why that day was chosen or to reconcile it with the earlier mention of October 12.

These histories should be taken in for repairs. They need to be revised again. If a date is to be recorded at all it is worth while to be accurate. If given in the old style it should be indicated as an old style date, but it is better recorded in the new style or, better still, in both. If the old style be given we know and should teach how to change from the old style to the new, whether by adding twelve days to the old style, as in the present century, eleven days as in the eighteenth century, ten days as in the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries, nine days as in the fifteenth century, etc.

The lessons which it was thought the Columbian celebrations would teach were but imperfectly learned, for the reason that the subject has never been clearly presented. Teachers should have something to do in this work of correcting a popular error, and should be familiar with the prevailing system of recording time, its origin and its history, but the details of that history cannot. be given here, the purpose of this article being to review briefly the facts connected with the Columbian celebration and the change in the anniversary date, and to call attention to the misunderstanding that prevails regarding it.

Let it suffice to say further that the so-called Gregorian calendar now used throughout the civilized world, is nothing more than

the Julian calendar, slightly amended to correct its only error. By the Julian scheme devised by Julius Cesar about half a century before Christ, the civil year exceeded the true solar year in length by eleven minutes and some seconds, consequently there was a falling back or loss of that much time each year, or about three days in every four centuries. In 1582, it was found that the accumulated losses amounted to ten days and they were that much behind in their reckonings. To correct this difference Pope Gregory XIII. decreed that ten days should be eliminated from that year. This was done by calling October 5 of that year October 15. Then, to guard against such losses in future, it was provided that three days should be omitted from every four centuries, by reckoning as common years of 365 days each, three year's that in the Julian calendar pass as leap years. For convenience the centurial years were chosen to be so changed; thus 1700, 1800, and 1900, all leap years in the Julian scale, were made common years, but every fourth century year, as 1600, 2000, etc., is to be regarded as leap year still.

Every year that passes as a common year in the Gregorian reckoning, and as leap year in the Julian calendar puts the latter one day farther behind. In the sixteenth century the difference between the two calendars was ten days; in the year 1700 it was increased to eleven days; the year 1800 made it twelve and very soon the year 1900 will make it thirteen days. This growing difference between the "Old Style" and the "New Style" cannot be disregarded entirely as the former is still in use in Russia whose dates are now twelve days behind ours. When it is May 30 here, it is May 18 there; Wednesday, July 4, 1894, with us will be Wednesday, June 22, with them; and Sunday, December 25, 1894, to the Russians will be Sunday, January 6, 1895, to us.

These are simple facts that every teacher should be able to explain. Our scheme for recording time should be more generally known and understood, as to its origin, the nature and the significance of the changes it has undergone, the exact difference between the "old style" and the "new," etc. The promulgation of the Julian calendar by Julius Cesar in the year 46, B. C.; its amendment by Gregory in 1582; the ratification and adoption of the amendment by different nations at different times, as by England and her colonies in 1752; the changing of important dates to conform to the "new style" as the date of "Columbus

Day" was changed in 1892; are all matters of historic interest and importance, and suitable mention of these events should be made in histories covering the times during which any of them took place. This, however, is not done, and it remains for the teacher to do the more to supply the deficiency.

THE CRITIC AT SEA. *

A review of "The Public School System of the United States."

BY THE AUTHOR OF "PRESTON PAPERS," NEW YORK CITY.

IV.

THE BOOK AS A WHOLE.

1.

ITS VERBAL OBLIQUITIES.

"One chooses words, like servants, for their usefulness, and not for their pedigree."- Bucknill: Preface to "The Mad Folks of Shakespeare.”

But even good servants, and those who boast of pedigree, sometimes fall into the hands of heartless masters, who do not scruple to overwork them, compelling not only the performance of their own duties, but those of various others.

Very like this is the manner in which the author seems to have used some of his most telling (?) words and phrases, even those whose original construction never fitted them for anything but ornamental appendages to pedantic conversation. By the time they have done "domestic duty" they have used up whatever attractive air for embellishment they may have at first possessed, and one is led to regret the evident paucity of the English language to express somewhat commonplace ideas, when such a word as mechanical is made to bear "the burden and the heat" (particularly the latter) of the argument as many times as it seems to have been used at haphazard? - throughout every description of every "system" and of the individual schools and teachers described. (See pp. 126-7, 153, for fair samples.) To be sure, the word gets a new setting occasionally, by having "purely" or "ludicrously," or some other equally psychological product of the Queen's English; but like the boy's jack-knife, with a new blade one day and a new handle the next, "it's the same old jackknife!"

* Copyright, 1894, by Kasson & Palmer.

"Purely" is another hard-ridden but seemingly favorite word, which, to my benighted mind, looks better as a fringe than as part of the whole cloth; and when it is made to do duty with "political" (pp. 2 and 62 et al.) it seems like a marriage without mating, if his idea of the political corruption of school boards and superintendents is O. K. Politics and purity are so far apart in fact according to his own statements, that he ought not to force their amalgamation in literature at a-dollar-and-a-half a volume!

After having seen "purely mechanical" in cold type so many times, its re-appearance after a while begins to partake of its own nature, and I heartily wish the "critic" hadn't criticized the "poor English" (p. 172) of the subjects of his "scientific" "observations" until he had sifted his own vocabulary. The use of purely with other irrelevant words is kept up throughout the book, with a variety of attachments that indicates a strong predilection in its favor, to be sure, but which smacks somewhat of verbosity rather than of masterly diction.

Tautology may pay, as an occupation to the highly scientific; but its office in argument is worthless (I nearly said "purely worthless, so accustomed have I become to these rich combinations); and even when taking a verbal chastisement, one may tire of "ludicrous teaching," "ridiculous," "absurd," " "pure, unadulterated, old fashioned grind," "purely mechanical drudgery," "drudgery schools," "highly unscientific," "professional weakness" in seemingly endless repetition, and wish for sledgehammer Saxon. However fascinating the other may be to the "expert" it is a little wearisome to the culprits, who meekly follow the brilliant example of the old time Athenians and wail for "Something new! Something new!"

Can not the pedagogical philosophers of culture supply the apparently needy with a brand-new vocabulary at reasonable rates? Surely the NEW EDUCATION can do this for its disciples.

Somebody will please pass around the hat for synonyms — and for new ideas (Small contributions thankfully received, and large ones in proportion!) as down to date this author has not discovered to the readers of his volume any new ideas nor new principles nor new language that can be made of practical service to the "average American teacher."

On the contrary, we are convinced when we read

as on page